The Serial Interaction of Stress and Syncope John J

University of Massachusets Amherst <a href="/goto?url=https://scholarworks.umass.edu?utm_source=scholarworks.umass.edu%2Flinguist_faculty_pubs%2F90&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages" target="_blank">ScholarWorks@UMass Amherst </a><ul style="display: flex;"><li style="flex:1"><a href="/goto?url=https://scholarworks.umass.edu/linguist_faculty_pubs?utm_source=scholarworks.umass.edu%2Flinguist_faculty_pubs%2F90&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages" target="_blank">Linguistics Department Faculty Publication Series </a></li><li style="flex:1"><a href="/goto?url=https://scholarworks.umass.edu/linguist?utm_source=scholarworks.umass.edu%2Flinguist_faculty_pubs%2F90&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages" target="_blank">Linguistics </a></li></ul>January 2008 e serial interaction of stress and syncope John J. McCarthy University of Massachuse t s s mherst, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: <a href="/goto?url=https://scholarworks.umass.edu/linguist_faculty_pubs?utm_source=scholarworks.umass.edu%2Flinguist_faculty_pubs%2F90&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages" target="_blank">h</a><a href="/goto?url=https://scholarworks.umass.edu/linguist_faculty_pubs?utm_source=scholarworks.umass.edu%2Flinguist_faculty_pubs%2F90&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages" target="_blank">t</a><a href="/goto?url=https://scholarworks.umass.edu/linguist_faculty_pubs?utm_source=scholarworks.umass.edu%2Flinguist_faculty_pubs%2F90&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages" target="_blank">ps://scholarworks.umass.edu/linguist_faculty_pubs </a> Part of the <a href="/goto?url=http://network.bepress.com/hgg/discipline/380?utm_source=scholarworks.umass.edu%2Flinguist_faculty_pubs%2F90&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages" target="_blank">Morphology Commons</a>, <a href="/goto?url=http://network.bepress.com/hgg/discipline/484?utm_source=scholarworks.umass.edu%2Flinguist_faculty_pubs%2F90&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages" target="_blank">Near Eastern Languages and Societies Commons</a>, and the <a href="/goto?url=http://network.bepress.com/hgg/discipline/381?utm_source=scholarworks.umass.edu%2Flinguist_faculty_pubs%2F90&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages" target="_blank">Phonetics and Phonology Commons </a>Recommended Citation McCarthy, John J., "e serial interaction of stress and syncope" (2008). Natural Language and Linguistic eory. 90. Retrieved from <a href="/goto?url=https://scholarworks.umass.edu/linguist_faculty_pubs/90?utm_source=scholarworks.umass.edu%2Flinguist_faculty_pubs%2F90&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages" target="_blank">h</a><a href="/goto?url=https://scholarworks.umass.edu/linguist_faculty_pubs/90?utm_source=scholarworks.umass.edu%2Flinguist_faculty_pubs%2F90&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages" target="_blank">t</a><a href="/goto?url=https://scholarworks.umass.edu/linguist_faculty_pubs/90?utm_source=scholarworks.umass.edu%2Flinguist_faculty_pubs%2F90&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages" target="_blank">ps://scholarworks.umass.edu/linguist_faculty_pubs/90 </a>is Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Linguistics at ScholarWorks@UMass Amherst. It has been accepted for inclusion in Linguistics Department Faculty Publication Series by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks@UMass Amherst. For more information, please contact <a href="mailto:[email protected]" target="_blank">[email protected]</a>. Nat Lang Linguist Theory (2008) 26: 499–546 DOI 10.1007/s11049-008-9051-3 ORIGINAL PAPER The serial interaction of stress and syncope John J. McCarthy Received: 7 November 2007 / Accepted: 12 April 2008 / Published online: 26 August 2008 © Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008 Abstract Many languages respect the generalization that some or all unstressed vowels are deleted. This generalization proves elusive in classic Optimality Theory, however. The source of the problem is classic OT’s parallel evaluation, which requires that the effects of stress assignment and syncope be optimized together. This article argues for a version of OT called Harmonic Serialism, in which the effects of stress assignment and syncope can and must be evaluated sequentially. The results are potentially applicable to other domains where process interaction is best understood in derivational terms. Keywords Harmonic Serialism · Optimality Theory · Stress · Syncope 1 Introduction Deletion of unstressed vowels is a common phonological process. For example, Macushi Carib has left-to-right iambic stress with lengthening of stressed vowels and deletion or reduction of unstressed vowels: (1) Macushi Carib (Hawkins 1950: 87) Underlying wanamari Surface <ul style="display: flex;"><li style="flex:1">wꢀnaꢁmꢂriꢁ </li><li style="flex:1">‘mirror’ </li></ul>u-wanamari-rꢃ ꢀwaꢁnꢀmaꢁrꢂrꢃꢁ ‘my mirror’ I will refer to this phenomenon as metrically-conditioned syncope (MCS), since properties of metrical structure determine which vowels delete. <ul style="display: flex;"><li style="flex:1">J.J. McCarthy ( </li><li style="flex:1">)</li></ul>ꢀDepartment of Linguistics, University of Massachusetts Amherst, Amherst, MA 01003, USA e-mail: <a href="mailto:[email protected]" target="_blank">[email protected] </a><ul style="display: flex;"><li style="flex:1">500 </li><li style="flex:1">J.J. McCarthy </li></ul>Extant approaches to MCS in rule-based phonology and Optimality Theory are very different from one another. In rule-based phonology, MCS is analyzed by ordering metrical-structure assignment before deletion of unstressed vowels. In classic OT (Prince and Smolensky 1993/2004), the effects of metrical-structure assignment and syncope are evaluated together, in parallel. In this paper, I will present an approach to MCS that is situated in a version of OT called Harmonic Serialism (HS). HS combines classic OT’s core assumptions with a type of serial derivation. I will support this approach by arguing that MCS is better analyzed as serial rather than simultaneous optimization of the effects of metrical structure assignment and deletion. The paper begins (Sect. 2) with essential background material: a short summary of the relevant properties of HS. It then continues (Sect. 3) with an overview of what HS has to say about MCS. This is followed (Sect. 4) by a case study to illustrate how this approach works. Section 5 describes the typological implications of this theory, while Sect. 6 compares it with alternatives. Section 7 extends the theory to two phenomena that are abstractly similar to MCS, metrically-conditioned shortening and metricallyconditioned lengthening. Section 8 summarizes. 2 About Harmonic Serialism HS is a derivational version of OT. It was originally proposed by Prince and Smolensky (1993/2004), who discuss it briefly before putting it aside. The locus classicus is the following quotation: “Universal grammar must provide a function Gen that admits the candidates to be evaluated. In the discussion in chapter 2 we have entertained two different conceptions of Gen. The first, closer to standard generative theory, is based on serial or derivational processing: some general procedure (Do-α) is allowed to make a certain single modification to the input, producing the candidate set of all possible outcomes of such modification. This is then evaluated; and the process continues with the output so determined. In this serial version of grammar, the theory of rules is narrowly circumscribed, but it is inaccurate to think of it as trivial. There are constraints inherent in the limitation to a single operation and in the requirement that each individual operation in the sequence improve Harmony.” (Prince and Smolensky 1993/2004: 94–95) In other words, HS’s GEN is limited to making one change at a time and EVAL selects the optimal member of this limited set of possibilities. The output of EVAL becomes another input to GEN, and the derivation continues until the point of convergence, when the latest output of EVAL is identical with the latest input to GEN.1 Prince and Smolensky’s sketch of HS is silent about various details that need to be spelled out before we can use HS to analyze data. Furthermore, in the course of 1For further discussion of Harmonic Serialism, see McCarthy (2000, 2002: 159–163, 2007a, 2007b, to appear). Related ideas include Harmonic Phonology (Goldsmith 1990: 319ff, 335–336; 1993), ConstraintRanked Derivation (Black 1993), Constraint Cumulation Theory (Norton 2003), and the OT syllable parser in Tesar (1995). <ul style="display: flex;"><li style="flex:1">The serial interaction of stress and syncope </li><li style="flex:1">501 </li></ul>exposition it will prove useful to have names for some of the properties of this model. To these ends, I will summarize the proposals and formulations in McCarthy (2007a), where a particular version of HS is worked out. GEN “is allowed to make a certain single modification to the input”. I will refer to this property of HS as gradualness. Gradualness imposes a limit on how much each step in an HS derivation can differ from the step that precedes it. There are several imaginable ways of defining this limit, and faithfulness theory offers a good option: GEN can add violations of only one basic faithfulness constraint at a time (McCarthy 2007a: 61–62, 77–79). The basic faithfulness constraints are in a one-to-one relationship with the basic operations in GEN, such as deletion (MAX), insertion (DEP), and changing a feature value (IDENT). Assigning a stress also violates a basic faithfulness constraint, which I will refer to (somewhat inaccurately) as IDENT(stress).2 A single step of an HS derivation may violate one or more non-basic faithfulness constraints, though never more than one basic faithfulness constraint. For instance, the HS derivation <tap, ta.pi, ta.bi> is properly gradual.3 It adds a DEP violation in the first step by epenthesizing [i]. Concomitant resyllabification of [p] is allowed because it does not bring any additional violations of basic faithfulness constraints.4 An IDENT(voice) violation is added in the next step. This step shows why we need to distinguish the basic faithfulness constraints: voicing of [p] to [b] violates only one basic faithfulness constraint, IDENT(voice), whereas it may also violate other non-basic faithfulness constraints, such as IDENT-ONSET(voice) (Lombardi 1995/2001). Because of the gradualness requirement, *<tap, ta.bi> is not a possible HS derivation. It is impossible because it introduces violations of two different basic faithfulness constraints, DEP and IDENT(voice), in a single step. Ideas similar to gradualness antedate OT. It harks back to proposed limitations on how much a single application of a phonological rule can do, as in Archangeli and Pulleyblank’s (1994) parametric rule system or Prince’s (1983) Move-x. The basic faithfulness constraints and the corresponding operations in GEN are analogous to the elementary transformations mentioned in Chomsky’s (1965: 147) definition of a grammatical transformation: “a Boolean condition on Analyzeability and a sequence of elementary transformations drawn from a base set including substitutions, deletions, and adjunctions.” Defining gradualness brings up the multiple application problem that first emerged in the early 1970’s. This problem arises whenever a single phonological process 2Although discussions of stress in OT rarely mention faithfulness constraints, the existence of IDENT(stress) or something like it follows from a basic point of OT logic: any property that a language can use contrastively must have a corresponding faithfulness constraint, since otherwise markedness constraints would always obliterate the contrast (cf. footnote 4). Stress is predictable in some languages, but it is not predictable in all languages, so a stress faithfulness constraint is needed in universal CON. 3Notation: Angled brackets < > are used for HS derivations, parentheses mark metrical feet, and vertical bars surround prosodic words. When necessary, syllable boundaries are indicated by a period/full stop. I will often ignore the difference between primary and secondary stress. 4Syllabification of tautomorphemic sequences is never contrastive within a language (Blevins 1995: 221; Clements 1986: 318; Hayes 1989: 260; McCarthy 2003b: 60–62). In OT, this means that there cannot be any faithfulness constraints that are protective of syllabification. (Though cf. Elfner 2006 for a different view, and see Elfner 2006; Bermúdez-Otero 2001; and Campos-Astorkiza 2004 on moraic faithfulness.) <ul style="display: flex;"><li style="flex:1">502 </li><li style="flex:1">J.J. McCarthy </li></ul>could apply at multiple loci in a form. Is the process applied simultaneously at every locus where its structural description is met (Anderson 1974; Chomsky and Halle 1968), or does it apply iteratively to one locus at a time (Howard 1972; Johnson 1972; Kenstowicz and Kisseberth 1977; Lightner 1972)? A similar question arises in HS: can all IDENT(stress) violations be added simultaneously, as in hypothetical <pa.ta.ka.ma.sa.fa, (ꢂpa.ta)(ꢂka.ma)(ꢂsa.fa)>, or must they be added one by one, as in <pa.ta.ka.ma.sa.fa, (ꢂpa.ta)ka.ma.sa.fa, (ꢂpa.ta)(ꢂka.ma)sa.fa, ... >? In the analysis in Sect. 4.3, I opt for allowing GEN to simultaneously add multiple violations of a single basic faithfulness constraint, so derivations like <pa.ta.ka.ma.sa.fa, (ꢂpa.ta)(ꢂka.ma)(ꢂsa.fa)> are allowed. I do this for an expository reason: it allows the analysis of stress in HS to maximally resemble the much more familiar analysis of stress in parallel OT. But in Sect. 4.4.2 I will argue for an iterative approach. Another consequence of the basic HS architecture is harmonic improvement—“the requirement that each individual operation in the sequence improve Harmony”. On every pass through GEN and EVAL, the form chosen by EVAL must be more harmonic than the input to GEN, or else identical to it (cf. Moreton 2003 on classic OT). If the form chosen is more harmonic than the input, then it becomes the input to another pass through GEN and EVAL. If it is identical to the input, then further harmonic improvement is not possible and the derivation terminates (i.e., it “converges”). Harmonic improvement in HS is best explained with an example. Suppose we have a language with the following constraint hierarchy: (2) A hypothetical constraint hierarchy NO-CODA ꢀ *VCvoicelessV ꢀ DEP, IDENT(voice) Under this hierarchy, the only gradual and harmonically improving derivations from the input /kad/ are <kad> and <kad, ka.di>. The singleton derivation <kad> is trivially gradual and harmonically improving. The longer derivation <kad, ka.di> is harmonically improving because [ka.di] satisfies NO-CODA ꢀ DEP better than [kad] does, and it is gradual because epenthesis of [i] incurs a violation of a single basic faithfulness constraint. In contrast, *<kad, kat> is not a possible derivation because it does not improve harmony relative to this hierarchy: [kat] introduces a violation of IDENT(voice) with no compensating improvement on any higher-ranking constraint. Harmonic improvement in HS resembles a core principle of the theory of Harmonic Phonology (Goldsmith 1990: 319ff, 335–336; 1993): rules apply only when they improve harmony (which is defined in that theory as conformity with phonotactics). On the other hand, it is quite different from stratal versions of OT, which posit different grammars for different strata (Ito and Mester 2003; Kiparsky 2000; Rubach 1997; and many others). HS uses the same grammar on each pass through Gen and Eval, so harmonic improvement is always relative to the same grammar. In stratal OT, the harmony requirements of different strata can be, and usually are, inconsistent. Since harmonic improvement is so central to HS, we require a device similar to the classic OT violation tableau to check whether a putative derivation does in fact improve harmony relative to a proposed constraint hierarchy. In (3) I give a harmonic improvement tableau, which shows that each step in a derivation is more harmonic than its predecessor. <ul style="display: flex;"><li style="flex:1">The serial interaction of stress and syncope </li><li style="flex:1">503 </li></ul>(3) Harmonic improvement tableau for <pap, pa.pi, pa.bi> /pap/ a. pap is less harmonic than b. pa.pi is less harmonic than c. pa.bi NO-CODA *VCvoiceless <ul style="display: flex;"><li style="flex:1">V</li><li style="flex:1">DEP IDENT(voice) </li></ul>1! <ul style="display: flex;"><li style="flex:1">1! </li><li style="flex:1">1</li></ul><ul style="display: flex;"><li style="flex:1">1</li><li style="flex:1">1</li></ul>In tableau (3) and elsewhere, I show faithfulness violations relative to the original underlying representation, not to the input of the latest pass through GEN. That assumption is not very important in this article, but it is required for the proper application of HS to phonological opacity in McCarthy (2007a). Tableau (3) also employs a couple of conventions that I will use throughout: integers rather than asterisks to count violations, and the exclamation point to signal a violation whose removal improves harmony. Tableau (3) certifies that <pap, pa.pi, pa.bi> is harmonically improving under the given constraint hierarchy. The form [pa.pi] in (3b) improves over the harmony of [pap] in (3a) because [pa.bi] eliminates [pap]’s NO-CODA violation without adding violations of any constraints ranked higher than NO-CODA. (There are none.) Likewise, [pa.bi] in (3c) improves over the harmony of [pa.pi] in (3b) because [pa.bi] eliminates [pa.pi]’s violation of *VCvoicelessV without adding violations of any constraints ranked higher than *VCvoicelessV. As I just noted, harmonic improvement follows from the nature of EVAL and its role in HS. These elements of the HS architecture are also the source of the property called local optimality in McCarthy (2007a: 61–62). After each pass through EVAL, the result is the most harmonic candidate from the restricted candidate set provided by HS’s GEN. It is locally optimal within that restricted set, though it may not be the ultimate output of the grammar. Stress nicely illustrates local optimality. Assume a language with trochaic feet and the following constraint hierarchy: (4) Another hypothetical constraint hierarchy ALIGN-L(word, foot) ꢀ ALIGN-R(word, foot) ꢀ IDENT(stress) ALIGN-L(word, foot) is violated by any word-initial syllable that is not also footinitial. Given this hierarchy, both <pa.ta.ka, (ꢂpa.ta)ka> and <pa.ta.ka, pa(ꢂta.ka)> are harmonically improving, since they improve performance on ALIGN-L(word, foot) and ALIGN-R(word, foot), respectively, at the expense of introducing a violation of low-ranking IDENT(stress). Under local optimality, [(ꢂpa.ta)ka] and [pa(ꢂta.ka)] compete as different ways of improving harmony. Since ALIGN-L(word, foot) ranks higher, [(ꢂpa.ta)ka] is locally optimal. This means that <pa.ta.ka, (ꢂpa.ta)ka> is a possible derivation in this language but *<pa.ta.ka, pa(ꢂta.ka)> is not. Analyzing linguistic data in HS requires attention to the derivational path as well as the ultimate output. If getting from /A/ to [B] requires several steps, but there is no route from /A/ to [B] that is gradual, harmonically improving, and locally optimal at each step, then [B] is not a possible output for /A/. This means that some logically <ul style="display: flex;"><li style="flex:1">504 </li><li style="flex:1">J.J. McCarthy </li></ul>possible input-output mappings can be analyzed in parallel OT but not HS when identical constraint sets are employed. There is evidence from language typology that this is a desirable property of HS (see McCarthy 2007a, 2007b, 2008; and cf. Bíró 2006). A final point. HS is not an alternative to OT; rather, it is a variant implementation of OT’s basic ideas, just as classic OT is another implementation. Harmonic improvement and local optimality are not some special principles of HS; they are intrinsic to EVAL and hence common to all versions of OT. Gradualness is the only property that is unique to HS. Although I have kept the name “Harmonic Serialism” for historical reasons, it might be more accurate to refer to HS as serial or gradual OT, distinguishing it in the only important respect from classic or parallel OT. 3 Stress-syncope interaction This section develops two main results about how assignment of metrical structure interacts with metrically-conditioned syncope in HS. One result is forced serialism: metrical-structure assignment and syncope cannot be simultaneous. Rather, they must occur at different steps in an HS derivation. The other result is intrinsic ordering: metrical-structure assignment and metrically-conditioned syncope must occur in that order. These results will prove particularly important when we turn to language typology in Sects. 5 and 6.1, since they limit the range of possible variation between languages. 3.1 Forced serialism Assignment of metrical structure and MCS cannot occur simultaneously in HS. This follows from gradualness: assignment of metrical structure and syncope violate different basic faithfulness constraints, so they must occur in different steps of the derivation. Hypothetical derivations like <pa.ta.ka, (ꢂpa.ta)ka, (ꢂpat)ka> or <pa.ta.ka, pat.ka, (ꢂpat)ka> are gradual, but *<pa.ta.ka, (ꢂpat)ka> is not. The forced serial interaction of metrical-structure assignment and MCS is clearly different from classic OT, where assignment of metrical structure and syncope must be simultaneous. It is also different from stratal OT. Stratal OT could model a serial derivation with stress before syncope, but because each stratum is a classic OT grammar, it is also possible to get simultaneous assignment of metrical structure and syncope within a single stratum. Thus, stratal OT permits but does not force serial interaction of stress and syncope. Gradualness has another consequence for the analysis of syncope in HS: it rules out analyses where stress is first assigned, and then the stressed vowel deletes with concomitant stress shift, usually to the other syllable in the foot. Syncope and (re)assignment of stress violate different basic faithfulness constraints, so they cannot be accomplished simultaneously with HS’s GEN. Since analyses with syncope and shift have been important in the development of metrical theory, I digress briefly to explain why we should be content to eliminate them. Bedouin Arabic presents one of the best cases for stress shift after syncope (Al- Mozainy 1981; Al-Mozainy et al. 1985; Hayes 1995: 228ff; Irshied and Kenstowicz

The Serial Interaction of Stress and Syncope John J

Details

Download

Copyright

We respect the copyrights and intellectual property rights of all users. All uploaded documents are either original works of the uploader or authorized works of the rightful owners.

Support